The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Collaborative Librarianship

Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 10

6-7-2020

The Efficienteam-Driv T en Quality Scholarship Model: A Process Evaluation of Collaborative Research

Johanna Alexander California State University, Bakersfield, [email protected]

Andrea Anderson California State University, Bakersfield, [email protected]

Sandra Bozarth California State University, Bakersfield, [email protected]

Heather Cribbs California State University, Bakersfield, [email protected]

Kristine Holloway California State University, Bakersfield, [email protected]

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship

Part of the Scholarly Publishing Commons

Recommended Citation Alexander, Johanna; Anderson, Andrea; Bozarth, Sandra; Cribbs, Heather; Holloway, Kristine; Livingston, Christopher; Overduin, Terezita; and Zhong, Ying (2020) "The Efficienteam-Driv T en Quality Scholarship Model: A Process Evaluation of Collaborative Research," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 12 : Iss. 1 , Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol12/iss1/10

This Peer Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. The Efficienteam-Driv T en Quality Scholarship Model: A Process Evaluation of Collaborative Research

Cover Page Footnote Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank our colleague, Amanda Grombly, Library Collection Development and Management Coordinator at California State University Bakersfield and the editors and reviewers of Collaborative Librarianship for their valuable feedback.

Authors Johanna Alexander, Andrea Anderson, Sandra Bozarth, Heather Cribbs, Kristine Holloway, Christopher Livingston, Terezita Overduin, and Ying Zhong

This peer reviewed article is available in Collaborative Librarianship: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/ collaborativelibrarianship/vol12/iss1/10 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Peer Reviewed Article

The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model: A Process Evaluation of Collaborative Research

Johanna Alexander ([email protected]) Kristine Holloway ([email protected]) Librarian Emerita, Distance Services Coordinator and California State University, Bakersfield Antelope Valley Librarian California State University, Bakersfield Andrea Anderson ([email protected]) Library Instruction and First-Year Christopher Livingston ([email protected]) Experience Coordinator, Archives, Special Collections, Institutional California State University, Bakersfield Repository, and Digital Initiatives California State University, Bakersfield Sandra Bozarth ([email protected]) Chair, Instructional Technology, AL$ and Terezita Overduin (terezita.over- Reference Services Coordinator [email protected]) California State University, Bakersfield Reference Librarian Chaffey College Library Heather Cribbs ([email protected]) Electronic Resource Management Coordinator Ying Zhong ([email protected]) California State University, Bakersfield NSME & Web Services Librarian California State University, Bakersfield

Abstract

The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship (ETQS) Model is a research and writing system, providing strategies for librarians and other faculty to complete scholarly research within a set time frame. ETQS includes a team-driven, collaborative approach, predetermined timelines, built-in quality controls, and concurrent research processes. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the ETQS Model to overcome common research obstacles and promote research success factors. Using the process evaluation method, the authors use the research and writing of this article to assess the ETQS Model. Team member reflections of the process are analyzed and ETQS strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) are evaluated and ameliorated. ETQS, in this case study, is effective in fostering scholarly productivity, pro- moting success factors, and overcoming obstacles. Utilization of this model could strengthen other collaborative research efforts.

Keywords: collaborative research, teams, process evaluation, SWOT analysis, scholarly productivity

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 113 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Introduction Literature Review

The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship The ETQS Model connects established ap- (ETQS) Model is a collaborative research and proaches to research productivity to provide a writing system providing support, timesaving new paradigm. As background, the review of strategies, and synergy with the combined abili- the literature covers multiple areas including ob- ties of team members. The scholarly research stacles to and success factors for research and and writing process can be an arduous and publication success, collaborative and team re- drawn-out process, competing with other work search approaches, productive research and responsibilities, along with research interrup- writing methods, condensed research timelines, tions. The ETQS Model was developed as a other models with some comparisons to ETQS, framework to expedite the scholarly research and the process evaluation method. and writing process utilizing a collaborative team-approach. The ETQS Model was originally Obstacles & Success Factors labeled Power Publishing, later renamed to high- Expectations for scholarly research activity have light an efficient team-driven structure to pro- increased within the library and information sci- duce quality scholarship. ence (LIS) profession.1 Multiple authors in the Librarian and other faculty researchers need to LIS and other fields have studied the obstacles meet research and publication goals but face to faculty research and publication, while others competing time drains, interrupted projects and have investigated factors that promote or pre- momentum, and other obstacles that interfere dict faculty research success. These factors often with scholarly productivity. The literature offers are mirror images. LIS studies by Kennedy and a description of common obstacles, success fac- Brancolini, Hoffmann, Berg, and Koufogianna- tors, and strategies to address challenges faced kis, Kilobase and Clyde, Swanepoel, and Lessick 2 by researchers. This study evaluates the effec- et al. and broader faculty studies by Clapton, 3 tiveness of the ETQS Model to promote four suc- Amsberryaugier, Griffin, and Lee identify barri- cess factors for productive library and infor- ers to research productivity and all note research mation science research, writing, and publica- insufficiencies of time, training/education, expe- tion. These factors include: rience, skill, confidence, commitment, research community/mentoring, and institutional sup- • research time and momentum, port/resources. Time constraints are often cited • research skills and experience, by survey participants as one of the top chal- • self-confidence in the research process, lenges to research and publication, citing the and conflict between workload and the time and en- • a research community with peer-mentor- ergy needed for scholarly work.4 ing support and collaborative opportuni- Hadré et al. designed a study to measure what ties. motivates faculty to research and what factors ETQS consists of four aspects: increase productivity. The study queried faculty from a variety of disciplines at research univer- • a team-driven collaborative design, sities across the United States. The primary take- • a condensed timeline, aways of the study were that research effort and • built-in quality controls, and teaching load are the "two strongest predictors • concurrent scholarly research processes. of productivity."5 Teaching load is a negative

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 114 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model predictor in that it creates a time barrier to re- of groups and collaboration on library research search.6 McGrail, Rickard, and Jones’ study re- productivity and developing a successful cul- garding interventions for increasing scholarly ture of research.13 publication discuss the problem of continuing project and writing momentum.7 Chase et al. Addressing the efficacy of a research commu- discuss the experiences of nursing faculty mak- nity, including research collaboration, team ap- ing time for research; acknowledging the "vari- proaches, and peer-mentoring, Lee and Bo- ous distractions that can derail productivity and zeman study the assumption of collaboration in- 14 decrease efficiency.”. They evaluate the chal- creasing publishing output. They maintain that lenges specifically related to time management, collaboration alone is not assurance of increased implicating the largest barrier as environmental effectiveness and there is a need for more exami- distractions involving “time drain” including nation into the factors that contribute to barriers. procrastination, attending to interruptions, and Cheruvelil et al. emphasizes the need for re- lack of discipline.8 Such insights are also perti- searchers to be committed to a common pur- 15 nent to LIS, which, like nursing, is a service ori- pose, approach, and performance goals. While ented and female dominated profession. collaboration should lend to mutual accountability, there is still a need for strong leadership, An article by the Social Sciences Feminist Net- member cooperation, engagement, and sensitiv- work Research Interest Group also studied fac- ity to the needs of others in the group. ulty research, teaching and service workload disparities by gender and marginalized faculty Productive Research & Writing Methods groups. Overall, compared to female faculty, Many writing-for-success articles take a variety male faculty spent more time on scholarly re- of approaches to increase productivity. McDon- search activities but “the differences were not nell suggests the "1-hour workday" where he statistically significant.” In contrast, both female schedules daily one-hour writing sessions dedi- and male marginalized faculty spent more time cated to the production of his scholarship.16 on service and teaching, activities less favored in Mills, Hill, and Saunders offer two methods for the tenure and promotion process.9 However, achieving productivity. One, based on Silvia's Guarino and Borden did find evidence of “a book How to Write a Lot suggests establishing gender imbalance in faculty service loads,” neg- clear goals, setting priorities, and monitoring atively impacting women faculty’s productivity progress.17 The other method cited widely across in research and teaching, and possibly leading to the literature is the Pomodoro Technique where promotion and salary disparities.10 Service and the task of writing is divided into twenty-five- other academic “invisible work” can reduce fac- minute intervals separated by three to five-mi- ulty time that could otherwise be used to in- nute breaks. Belcher provides a detailed work- crease research productivity. book to guide authors on a scheduled plan for Collaborative and Team Approaches producing academic journal articles in twelve weeks.18 In 2015, the National Research Council reported on a “dramatic shift toward collaborative re- Increasing scholarly productivity is reliant on ef- search.”11 Cheruvelil et al., Nygaard, and Hell- fective strategies for time management. The edi- ström et al., assume collaborative research teams torial board for the Western Journal of Nursing Re- are not only necessary, but also advantageous search discuss time management strategies they for scientific and research endeavors.12 Hall and employ that directly relate to research success. McBain’s and Pickton’s articles study the impact The most significant of these include scheduling

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 115 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model uninterrupted research time, declining activities those with longer time limits.”25 Selecting a re- that do not directly relate to intended research duced timeline for a research project can be a goals, and giving as much attention to research useful method to increase research productivity. as other work obligations.19 In addition, all acknowledge the need for planning, prioritizing, Other Models setting goals, delegating, organizing, and team- Numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors moti- work as essential factors in a time management vate faculty researchers. Known obstacles im- strategy to effectively produce quality research pede researchers including lack of formal or in- in a more efficient manner. formal institutional and academic community Fennewald conducted a study specific to library support. To mitigate such obstacles, institutional scholarship in which he examined factors that program initiatives and models can provide col- explain the rate of publishing among his collaborative structures for faculty to gain research leagues. He finds that the most significant bar- experience, mentoring, and increase research rier to writing and publishing is time. Librarians productivity. employed a variety of methods to overcome the Swanepoel explores a “maximum immersion” time obstacle such as designating a day of the strategy in which all employees at a university week to write or dedicating time over the sum- library participate in an ongoing research pro- mer break. A specific model for writing was not ject. Swanepoel sets clear conditions for success, identified in the study. Fennewald concludes which includes undertaking a research project personal factors such as commitment to the pro- that is beneficial to all participants, the library, fession and institutional support explain librar- and preferably, to the university community. ian productivity and success in publishing.20 The Swanepoel project allocates responsibilities Condensed Timelines and tasks, keeping in mind the strengths and skills of the individual researchers, and divides According to Parkinson’s Law, time and produc- the group into project sub-teams to accomplish tivity are related.21 The law states that work ex- tasks and implements accountability proce- pands according to the time allotted to complete dures. Uniquely, this study comprises all library the task. Zao-Sanders also notes, “we often employees including those who traditionally do spend more time on a task than we should, in- not participate in research activities at the uni- fluenced by the time that happens to be availa- versity level. This inclusiveness allows new ble (circumstantial) rather than how long the skills to develop, leading to more informed li- work should really take (objective).”22 Studies brary personnel. Swanepoel does not include a by Latham and Locke, Bassett, and Bryan and time-based approach and focuses on library- Locke test the validity of Parkinson's Law using wide projects. However, Swanepoel’s program various field and lab assessments.23 Findings does provide a solid framework for collabora- demonstrate that work effort depends on work- tively accomplishing a librarian-led research ers’ perception of the difficulty of the task. For project.26 projects with a longer period to completion the "work pace will slow to fill the allotted time.”24 Pickton describes steps and programs to culti- Conversely, if the time to complete the project is vate a research culture within academic libraries reduced, work pace will increase to complete the and provides evidence that both institutionally project by the deadline because "those with led approaches and library staff efforts facilitate shorter time limits will set harder goals than research at the University of Northampton Li- brary. The Northhampton example is based on

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 116 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model an institutionally driven research culture that means to improve a process or system.31 An ex- promotes librarian and staff research projects, amination of a processes’ strengths, weaknesses, encourages management support, training and opportunities, and threats, commonly known as support groups, peer-mentoring, funding op- a SWOT analysis, provides one such evaluative tions, collaboration, and forums to share re- tool from the perspective of those involved in search.27 the process or using the system. SWOT analyses can be simplistic or complex.32 SWOT analysis Senior librarians at the Royal Melbourne Insti- and implementation are reviewed by Steiss, tute of Technology (RMIT) University Library Nelke and Ray, Webb, Bess, King, and LeMaster, discuss a model for voluntarily increasing the Leigh, and Schooley.33 Studies by Andrews et scholarly work being produced by their librarian al., Bess, King, and LeMaster, Galas et al., Nam 28 staff. The inexperience of new, but enthusias- et al., and the Oregon Health Authority provide tic librarians led to the formation of the “Get examples utilizing the process evaluation Published Group.” Like other research support method with the SWOT framework to provide groups, membership was voluntary for all li- situation analyses of programs, projects, and brarians and meetings consisted of sharing indi- processes.34 Originally used for corporate and vidual research successes and listening to peers organizational planning, SWOT analysis has or experts give insights and advice on the re- been adapted and modified for a variety of pro- search and publication process. As a discussion jects and fields outside these arenas as reviewed and learning group, RMIT’s model effectively by Gürel and Tat, Ghazinoory, Abdi, and Aza- increased the confidence and knowledge of li- degan-Mehr.35 brarians early in their career and allowed them to make strides in writing, publishing, and pre- The ETQS Model: Efficient Team-Driven senting. Quality Scholarship

Process Evaluation As mentioned earlier, the ETQS Model is based on a team-driven collaborative design, a con- The process evaluation method utilized in the densed or pre-set timeline with concurrent re- present article and discussed in the methods sec- search processes, built-in quality controls, and tion is used in library science and various social scholarly research processes and guidelines. science fields. It allows researchers to assess whether a program, process, or model is effec- Team-driven Collaborative Design tive and which segments work well or need im- The design includes a team of researchers, each provement. Various techniques and tools used with responsibilities and roles. Although any to gather process feedback include interviews, number of researchers could be on a team, four evaluator and participant reflections, document to ten people is optimal. In this case study, the reviews, as well as others. Powell, Stufflebeam team consisted of eight members who coau- and Coryn, Weiss, and Patton describe process thored this article. The project is managed by the evaluation and analysis techniques.29 Bess, King, team leader who initiates the project, sends out a and LeMaster’s work provides a useful and de- call of interest to colleagues, and sets the initial tailed application of the method in the social sci- meeting. At this meeting, the team leader pro- ences.30 poses the research project and leads the team in As described by Powell, process evaluation is a discussion about the project including any is- used to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and sues, critiques, methodology, impacts, etc. The

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 117 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model team leader in consultation with the team, pro- collaborative environment allows the workload vides direction, ensuring the team keeps to the to be distributed among the team leader and timeline and goals stated in project meetings. members based on individual experience and in- This individual also assigns or asks for volun- terest. It provides collaborative learning by al- teers to take on tasks as needed and ensures that lowing the team to learn specific skill sets from all members have responsibilities at each phase each other. For example, a researcher who is es- of the project. Team members agree to the com- pecially adept at creating visualizations can mitments of meetings, work, time, and energy complete this project task and teach other team agreed upon by the team (for example: all team members. members must attend or call-in for 75 percent of all meetings). Each member should actively par- A Condensed Timeline and Concurrent Research ticipate by accepting or volunteering for project Processes tasks, contributing to meeting discussions, In most individual projects, the research process providing their perspective on the research and includes the exploratory, research design, imple- writing process, noting inconsistencies and/or mentation, and results phase. The final phase in- errors, and looking at both individually as- cludes writing the article or report. All research, signed tasks and the entire project. individual or collaborative, may involve reitera- tion processes and “writing as you go,” but it is The team-driven collaborative design aspect mo- generally a sequential process where each phase tivates team members, encourages continued includes specific tasks that must be accom- project momentum, and provides solutions to plished before moving on to the next phase. Ta- barriers that hinder research. The team-driven ble 1 depicts these phases and tasks.

Table 1. The Sequential Research Process36 Exploratory Phase Identify problem/study objectives Develop research question/problem statement Review the relevant literature and draft a literature review Identify and define key variables or concepts Describe assumptions of the study Develop theory, model, or process to be studied Identify possible journal, format, and submission timeline Research Design Phase Develop the research design Decide on the research methods, research measures, and data collection strategies Implementation Phase Implement methodology Collect data Analyze data Evaluate data Results Phase Report on results writing article Revise Submit

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 118 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

The ETQS Model uses a different paradigm by line for completion using a team-driven ap- adding the team research component. The se- proach, which includes writing, reviewing, and quential tasks or sub-tasks are completed by in- revising throughout the process. As much as dividual team members, but in some instances possible, ETQS research tasks and the resultant are concurrent assignments.37 The ETQS Model article are developed in tandem. When team purposefully groups interrelated and independ- members are committed to the timeline, time ent research and writing tasks in order for the distractions are minimized, and the project is work to be completed by setting a specific time- completed on schedule. Grouped tasks are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The ETQS Research Process Exploratory Phase Preliminary work Completed by team leader before project begins Identify problem/study objectives Develop research question/problem statement and preliminary research design Write these sections of the article as assigned to team members Revise Beginning of project; work collaboratively on these tasks Subcommittee or team member Review the relevant literature and draft a literature review Identify and define key variables or concepts Describe assumptions of the study Develop theory, model, or process to be studied Write these sections of the article as assigned to team members Revise Subcommittee or team member Identify possible journal, format, and submission timeline Research Design, Implementation, and Reporting Results Phases Second phase of project; work collaboratively on these tasks Subcommittee or team member Develop more of the research design Decide on the research methods, research measures, data collection strategies Write these sections of the article as assigned to team members Revise Subcommittee or team member Implement methodology Collect data Analyze data Evaluate data Write these sections of the article as assigned to team members Revise Last Phase of Project; Work Collaboratively on These Tasks Revise Have one team member edit for “one voice”

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 119 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Get outside review Revise Submit

At the beginning of the project the team deline- ing the team’s intended plan is provided in Ta- ates the research objectives, meeting agenda, ble 3. The team leader’s preliminary work and team member task assignments, on-going tasks the work of the team for the set timeline are out- outside team meetings, and article section objec- lined. Other project planning systems can also tives for each week within the context of a set be used to set predefined goals and deadlines timeline or calendar. A sample template reflect- while tracking the process.

Table 3. ETQS Process Model Template

On-going Team-member Tasks Outside Meeting Task Team Article Research Objectives Agenda Assignments Meetings Objectives Preliminary • Identify prob- Work lem/study objectives Not applicable Team leader Not applicable Draft • Develop research ques- prospectus tion/problem statement • Review some current literature • Identify and define key variables or concepts • Describe assumptions of the study • Develop working model • Call for colleague interest in project

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 120 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Week One • Describe assump- Introduction • Transcribe • Review • Problem tions of the study • Overview meeting literature statement • Refine model of re- discussion • Develop • Draft pre- • Decide on the research notes timeline liminary search methods or project • Literature • On-going abstract design and team review Discussions and intro • Decide on research model team • Literature measures • Commit- • Research review • Decide on data col- ment and on possible • Model lection strategies team- journal • Method • Begin looking at member • Timeline • Draft possible journals for responsi- narrative works submission bilities and time- cited page • Team- line leader role • Preliminary • Discus- model dia- sion about gram questions, • SWOT concerns, analysis for issues each team • Outline of member tasks and timeline

Week Two • Participant observa- • Research • Transcrib- • Reviewing • Data col- tions - Notes from Tasks: ing meeting literature lection meetings and emails • SWOT discussion • Collecting process as • Content analysis analysis • Literature data part of ar- (looking for themes) one dis- review • Begin ana- ticle re- • Situational analysis cussion team lyzing sults sec- (SWOT) • Research available tion • In-house survey – on possible SWOT in- questions and reflec- • Draft arti- journal formation tions cle feed- • Timeline • Collect data • Interviews - meeting back narrative • Draft arti- open ended and and time- cle feed- guided questions line back • Continuing looking • SWOT (Google for possible journal analysis for docs) for submission each team member

Weeks • Collect data • Draft arti- • Results Three and • Analyze data • SWOT cle feed- • Discus- Four • Evaluate data and analysis back sion describe/discuss re- two dis- (Google sults cussion Docs) and revise

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 121 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

• Describe the limita- • Continue tions of the study collecting • Prepare summary or data conclusion • Draft arti- • Continue • Develop future re- cle feed- analyzing search ques- back available tions/agenda SWOT in- • Decide on journal formation for article submis- • Reformat sion works cited to confirm to journal format Week Five • Describe the limita- • Draft arti- • Limita- tions of the study cle feed- tions of • Prepare summary or back the study conclusion (Google • Conclu- • Develop future re- Docs) and sion or search ques- revise summary tions/agenda • Draft arti- • Final data • Future re- • Revise article intro- cle for collection search duction feedback • Team • Revise article ab- member stract edits in one voice • Team members and team- leader fi- nalize journal submission

Week Six • Article is reviewed • After re- by another colleague view and edits are made as needed, the article is submitted to the journal

Quality Controls research project does not itself guarantee quality or rigor.38 ETQS quality control is achieved by Limiting the research timeline prompts ques- working in a collaborative environment where tions about quality and the need for more effec- each team member’s concerns, questions, and is- tive revision processes, but more time spent on a sues are addressed. Working in a team ensures

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 122 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model that the research and writing is reviewed by Evaluating the Model multiple people and is improved through “group thinking.” Additionally, at least one out- The researchers, eight team members in total, as- side review of the final article is sought prior to sessed the usefulness of the ETQS Model by us- submission. A quality checklist or journal rubric ing it to create the present article. ETQS was the such as those provided by Glynn39 or research topic and was also evaluated as to Desrosiers,40 may also be used. whether it was a viable research and publication model for this team. Thus, two key research Scholarly Research Processes and Project questions were answered during this research Guidelines study.

Conceptualizing the problem and/or topic as Research Question #1: Using the process evalua- well as clearly stating the research question is tion research methodology, what ETQS Model critical to any research project. The selected strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and topic and research method should be workable threats were observed by team members for within the ETQS expedited model, with focused each model facet? Model facets examined in- ideas that have clear parameters in order that clude: the project can be completed within the deter- mined time frame. Early in the process, the jour- • Using a team-driven collaborative design, nal to which the research will be submitted is se- • Using a condensed timeline, lected so that the team can craft the article in the • Building-in quality controls, appropriate format. Issues to consider include • Supporting a scholarly research process, the scope of the journal, requirements and re- and strictions, research methodologies accepted, • Leveraging model efficiencies. journal research agendas, checklists, and/or ru- Research Question #2: As implemented, did the brics. use of the ETQS Model effectively help team- When team members prepare the literature re- members overcome selected obstacles and/or view, the focus should be on the most current provide them with a supportive framework and and relevant materials. Concentrating on the re- environment for research and publication search statement and gaps found in the litera- productivity? Obstacles and supports examined ture is helpful. The review of literature within include: an ETQS project is intended to be relevant but • Setting time aside for research, selective. The goal of ETQS is to focus on topics • Increasing research skills and experience, that will benefit from an expedited research and • publication process such as literature reviews, Increasing self-confidence in the research case studies, project descriptive studies, group process, and projects, and evaluative studies. Some research • Creating a collaborative research and writ- may require the development of a survey instru- ing opportunity (including a research ment, institutional review board approval, and community, peer-mentoring, feedback, the collection and analysis of data. However, etc.) long-term projects such as these can benefit from Methodology the ETQS Model in the data analysis and/or final writing stage. The process evaluation method used to evaluate ETQS allows researchers to evaluate whether

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 123 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model processes, programs, and/or plans as imple- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and mented are effective, how well and what aspects threats of the model in the present project. work and what aspects need improvement. The evaluators provided analysis throughout the In the last phase of the project and prior to the process and described if it worked. Various tech- distribution of the final working draft, each niques and tools used to gather process feed- team member provided answers to a five-point back include interviews, evaluator and partici- Likert reflection questionnaire covering 1) the pant reflections, document reviews, and SWOT ETQS Model’s effectiveness in overcoming ob- analyses.41 In the present study, a combination stacles and/or supporting factors for research of participant reflections and SWOT analyses are and publication, 2) future use of the model, and used. 3) the effectiveness of each aspect of the ETQS Model. The results were analyzed according to Based on the literature review, the team con- themes to see where the model was successful, cluded that the need for research time, lack of what needed improvement, and where the collaboration, mentoring, and other barriers to model might be useful in other research projects. academic scholarship productivity were issues Based on these themes, a coding template was for other researchers as well as the team. Addi- created to track team member’s views of the tionally, the tasks of researching and writing model throughout the process. An obvious limi- across interrupted time spans decreases momen- tation is that the methodology is evaluating a tum and productivity. Qualitative evaluations of single case study. Additional studies where the ETQS Model were collected through two ETQS is used would be necessary to further test SWOT assessments during the project. The the model. ETQS SWOT assessment is based on SWOT evaluation designs from Bess, King, and LeMas- Results ter and Leigh.42 SWOT analyses indicate partici- Addressing the first research question, Table 4 pants’ perception of ETQS Model features de- summarizes the major strengths, weaknesses, scribed as a strength, weakness, opportunity, or opportunities, and threats of ETQS features, and threat to the ETQS process. By coding and tabu- the factors considered by team members to im- lating the number of responses, a ranking was prove research productivity.43 derived as to what was considered the greatest

Table 4. ETQS Model Features SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses ➢ Team-driven collaborative design ➢ Quality controls – (Quality controls did ➢ Supporting a scholarly research process not initially address all quality concerns ➢ Leveraging efficiencies brought on by the condensed timeline ➢ Providing a collaborative research & writ- and early ambiguous parameters.) ing opportunity

Opportunities Threats ➢ Team-driven collaborative design ➢ External scheduling conflicts and work- ➢ Increase research skills and experience related time constraints ➢ Providing a collaborative research and writing opportunity

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 124 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Using the SWOT information and team member among members, supporting a scholarly re- reflections, the second research question was an- search process as a group, and providing an op- swered. The ETQS Model as implemented was portunity to research in collaboration; all with effective in helping team members overcome se- the goal of improving research productivity. lected obstacles and/or provide them with a supportive framework and environment for re- Weaknesses search and publication productivity. Specifi- Team members considered ETQS built-in qual- cally, the model was effective in helping team ity controls the major weakness of the ETQS members: set aside time for research, continue Model. These control measures included collab- project momentum, increase research skills and oration and improvements through “group experience, and increase self-confidence in the think,” team reviews of research and writing, research process. Additionally, the model effec- and seeking an outside review. However, as the tively created a collaborative research and writ- project progressed, perceptions of this weakness ing opportunity, providing peer-mentoring sup- declined slightly. By the end of the project, team port. reflections showed that six out of eight team Four questions were posed in assessing the members agreed that quality control features ETQS SWOT results. were effective. The initial quality control concerns pertained to the model’s lack of initial con- 1. What are the strengths and how can the ceptual development and concerns that key team build on these factors? items would be missed because of the condensed timeline. 2. What are the weaknesses and how can those be mitigated? While the ETQS Model had been broadly outlined at the start of the project, the model still re- 3. What are the opportunities and how can quired further development and refinement these improve ETQS in the future? during the research process. This resulted in am- biguity, confusion, and delays before there was 4. What are the threats to ETQS and how can a fully detailed model. These issues were dis- these be minimized? cussed during early team meetings and were a In the following discussion section, these ques- consistent theme within individual SWOT anal- tions are addressed along with a review of the yses. ETQS process and team reflections. Additionally, the idea of using ETQS both as the Discussion topic and research model was concerning to some team members. They considered it prob- Strengths lematic since the model needed additional development. Some members were so concerned, Team members considered four ETQS model they considered discontinuing their participa- features to be major strengths. These included tion. The other members however, encouraged the team-driven collaborative design, support- and convinced them to continue, noting their ing a scholarly research process, leveraging effi- critiques would benefit the project. Indeed, their ciencies in the process, and providing a collabo- feedback was instrumental in clarifying and im- rative research and writing opportunity. Many proving the model for both the current project of these features considered to be strengths re- and future applications. After these discussions, volved around team efforts; sharing the work one team member commented, “We are more

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 125 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model confident about the quality of the article thanks research obstacles. A team member in the sec- to everyone’s input and we’ve a better under- ond SWOT analysis states, “This is an oppor- standing of the process and the goal.” tunity to learn from colleagues. . . new librarians [can] gain knowledge about the process of re- Instead of the team having to “figure out” the search and publication, and they feel more confi- exact direction and next steps, more detailed dent as the project proceeds.” Collaborative and foundational and summative work by the team learning aspects provide motivation and struc- leader is needed prior to the start of the project. ture to the research process, for both the new Before utilizing the ETQS Model, the project and and more experienced researcher. It is the prospectus should be clearly defined, providing strength and opportunity presented by the col- solid direction, explanations, and organization. laboration and team aspects that were key to Without this, the team falters and struggles as a clarifying the ETQS Model, improving the pa- group. rameters of the literature review, helping identify key findings, and enhancing the research Team members had various section writing as- process and writing. ETQS promotes collabora- signments but figuring out the best way to edit tive research and peer/mentoring, improving with multiple authors was a challenge. The research skills and increasing confidence to take team experimented and floundered with various on future research initiatives. editing plans such as individual member edits then combined by the team leader or group ta- Threats ble-read sessions, all of which were both ineffec- tive and inefficient. After several sessions, the Team members considered external scheduling team began using the collaborative Google Docs conflicts and work-related time constraints to be applications to organize project records and a major threat to the model. This manifested in combine individual edits which then were re- several instances. Some team members voiced solved during team edit meetings. their concerns that not enough time was allotted to work on or complete the project and that the Even with an improved editing system, assign- timeline might impact quality such as in the lit- ing different writing projects to different mem- erature review. To address this concern, addi- bers resulted in a juxtaposition of styles that led tional areas and resources were added to the lit- to some confusion and awkwardness in the final erature review, but this also delayed the process. written piece. When that was recognized, it was Additionally, although team members were decided that one person should go through the willing to work, they were not always given as- article and conform the different writing styles signments for each project week which resulted to one voice. After this, the article was reviewed in more delays. again by members of the group who judged that their meaning was correctly interpreted and that The original designated project period seemed their individual points of view were still re- ideal as a group, but individual members en- flected within the entire piece. countered time conflicts that were out of their control. This was further complicated by having Opportunities to extend the timeline, conflicting with additional obstacles such as the school term and The team-driven collaborative design, increasing member illness. These issues disrupted the time- research skills and experience, and providing a line, hindering team momentum and interrupt- collaborative research and writing opportunity ing article completion. The start of the school were all considered major opportunities for im- year caused further delays which resulted in the proving research productivity and overcoming

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 126 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model article draft not being ready for final editing un- moved forward in the project, issues that were til the spring semester. Future timelines should at first viewed as weaknesses or threats to the be designed with this knowledge. process were mitigated by open discussion, collaboration, and correcting problems. The collab- Initially, the plan was to hold only six meetings, orative nature of ETQS lends itself to the resolu- but to complete the project, an additional four tion of difficulties encountered in research pro- full-length meetings were required. While the jects. team-driven collaborative design was considered a major strength, one team member noted Increasing Model Effectiveness that the collaborative design may be a threat, stating, “people will keep revising and the arti- Once ETQS is used in a library or other organi- cle will never get submitted.” This, along with zational setting, continuing to use the system the issues of a condensed timeline, increased should lead to a more effective model. Several this concern. Hearing these concerns helped team members commented that they looked for- keep the project on course by learning to revise ward to using ETQS in their future research pro- sections more efficiently and using Google Docs jects. The continued use by the same or some of for collaborative comments/editing. As the pro- the same team members would help to adapt ject and article progressed, these concerns were and refine the process. A team becomes better mitigated. aware of the “sub-teams” that might be needed for such areas as the literature review, data col- Team Reflections lection, editing, etc. The team also becomes aware of each member’s abilities and interests. Near the end of the research project, team mem- Providing opportunities for team members to bers reflected on the effectiveness of each of the take on new tasks for different projects is benefi- ETQS factors. These reflections confirmed the cial, especially for new librarians, providing ad- SWOT assessments but also provided different ditional experience and knowledge in other re- results in several other areas. Making time for search processes. research, increasing self-confidence in the research process, and providing peer-mentoring Evaluating and revising university and library were considered minor or not mentioned at all retention, tenure, and promotion criteria to en- in the SWOT analyses. However, in the final courage scholarly collaboration would also add team reflections, each of these factors received to model benefits. Some academic departments favorable ratings of strongly agree and/or give greater weight to sole- or dual-authored somewhat agree in providing effective research works while other fields typically publish more support. multi-authored research. A study in 2014 however showed that 64.5 percent of the LIS re- In the SWOT analyses, external scheduling con- search articles studied were multi-authored flicts in the face of a condensed timeline was works.44 For academic libraries, encouraging this considered a major threat to the project but in type of collaborative and multi-authored re- the final reflection, team members deemed the search would make the model more beneficial to condensed timeline as somewhat effective. In all scholarship and publication efforts and also pro- factors, team reflections indicated that at least vide a mentoring opportunity for junior library six or more of the eight team-members strongly faculty. Librarians with research ideas could agreed or somewhat agreed that the factors were readily include team members to participate and effective, even for areas considered a weakness complete research projects. or threat in the SWOT analyses. As the team

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 127 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Project Issues and Adjustments couraging all members to offer candid, respect- ful and professional input along with being Throughout the previous sections, project issues open to critiques and suggestions. Open rapport faced by the team are described. However, it is and providing a safe environment to share view- useful to summarize the roadblocks or problems points is especially important where teams in- encountered in implementing the ETQS Model. clude both junior and senior faculty members. Table 5 highlights the original process goals im- Meeting notes attest that members felt free to pacted by these issues, the solutions and adjust- voice their concerns and issues. With trust estab- ments made, and the results. In retrospect, most lished, it was easier to identify project issues and of the problems resulted from less than optimal make needed adjustments. Good rapport im- model implementation rather than the model it- proved the entire project and remained a vital self. This transparency will assist future ETQS component of ETQS project success. Once prob- teams to avoid similar issues and/or make mod- lems were identified and evaluated in a “round ifications earlier on as needed. table open discussion” actionable goals were de- vised, and the work was assigned to or taken on The process of solving project issues was aided by members. The “group-think” environment by creating and maintaining a non-threatening provided a good foundation for brainstorming team environment throughout the project, en- and planning solutions, allowing the team to “divide and conquer” problems.

Table 5. Project Issues and Adjustments

Issue/ Solution/ Goal Problem Impact Adjustment Result Project Plan: Project and Quality control Encouraged can- Extended model initially concerns, ambi- did input from timeline Provide a clearly lacked full con- guity, confu- team members defined project ceptual develop- sion, and de- with solid direc- ment lays before Discussed and tion, explanations, there was a further devel- and organization fully detailed oped the model model

Project Plan: Team members Discussion and Team decided to Member view- disagreed as to concerns about continue as points clearly Use the ETQS the benefit of us- this issue took planned but en- improved the Model as both the ing ETQS both up a good deal couraged mem- model, project, topic and research as topic and re- of initial meet- bers to voice all and resulting ar- model search model ing time concerns and ticle suggestions

Literature Review Members were Important liter- Additional re- Literature re- & Quality Con- concerned that ature might be source sugges- view section trol: literature selec- missed tions were pro- was improved tivity with the vided after first

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 128 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Include only the condensed time- literature review Team members most current and line would di- drafts found that hav- relevant refer- minish project ing to revisit lit- ences in the litera- quality erature review ture review and be parameters was selective to stay Literature re- disconcerting within condensed view areas and timeline parameters were Extended time- initially unclear line

Team Member Although will- Did not fully Brought to the Extended time- Assignments: ing, there were utilize team attention of the line weeks when members team leader and Assign all mem- some team which im- members bers responsibili- members were pacted the ties during each not assigned re- timeline Extended time- project phase and sponsibilities line between team meetings

Timeline: Time delays Project delayed Added addi- Extended time- were caused by tional team line Follow and main- having to spend meetings to tain a pre-set and more time to de- complete the Completed the condensed time- velop the model, project project within a line writing article year but not sections, and Team commit- within the initial scheduling con- ment allowed period outlined flicts team to continue meeting to complete the project

Collaborative Multiple authors Experimented Used collabora- Record-keeping Writing: and writing and floundered tive Google and editing be- styles with various Docs applica- came more Write and revise editing plans: tions to organize streamlined throughout the project records which helped project with “one individual edits and to combine the team main- voice” edit at the combined by edits before tain project mo- end of the project leader or in team meetings mentum team meetings which were then resolved during team edit meetings.

One team member did final

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 129 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

“one voice” editing

Draft reviewed by colleague

All members proofed final submission

Conclusion critiques, with the goals of improving and expe- diting the project. Likewise, team members must What Was Learned be open to giving critiques and suggestions. This give-and-take can be uncomfortable at times but The effectiveness of ETQS is based on three ma- is vital. A collaborative environment where all jor components: accountability, team critique, team members feel safe to voice their honest and organizational team building. opinions without risking embarrassment or Accountability - The collaborative design pro- other repercussions establishes "psychological moted group and individual accountability. safety" and enhances team effectiveness.45 Members wanted to support and meet team Organizational Team Building – ETQS strength- goals and not disappoint the team. Interestingly, ened collaboration and relationships within our during discussions, the team felt that each mem- organization and could prove beneficial in other ber contributed equally except when it came to institutions. The process established a founda- their own individual contribution. Many voiced tion for cooperative work, collegial interaction, their concern that they had not put as much collaborative authorship, improved morale, and work and energy into the project as others, but investment in the organization. Additionally, the leader and other team members disagreed. ETQS provided a means for team members to Even when the project was interrupted, the better recognize the skills brought by each indi- team-driven collaborative aspect continued to vidual member. The model promotes a think- motivate the team to complete the project. While tank culture within the library where various the original completion time objective was not ideas are evaluated and discussed, leading to li- met, (i.e., have an article ready for submission brary improvements. While it is advantageous after six meetings and prior to the beginning of to use ETQS with a group with established col- the regular school term), the article was com- laborative skills, this model also provides op- pleted and submitted within one year of the pro- portunities to build collaborative teams, increase ject start. The ETQS Model provides accounta- organizational synergy, and change the environ- bility and motivation to finish a project. ment for the better.

Team Critique - In order to be successful, the Other Applications team learned to readily accept others’ view- While this model was found to be useful in this points, suggestions, edits, and trust in member’s single case study, additional use of the ETQS abilities and input. It is important to be open to

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 130 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Model in other projects and by other researchers encourage librarians to collaborate with non-li- is needed to provide further evidence of model brary researchers and faculty, providing more outcomes and effectiveness. However, in re- opportunities for cross-disciplinary publication. viewing the experience from team members and the current case study, there are derived insights The collaboration model used in this study pro- for other applications. ETQS can encourage on- vided benefits to the organization as a whole; re- going contributions to the scholarly community searchers investigating, discussing, and making by providing a paradigm of research that em- improvements, in addition to increasing the in- phasizes collaboration, compacted and/or pre- stitution’s scholarly research output. The model set timelines, and quality scholarship. This same could be used on an on-going basis as new pro- model is applicable to many types and sizes of jects emerge within a library research group. libraries, institutions, and teams. The ETQS New ideas could be submitted, discussed, and method would benefit highly structured organi- ranked with a call to colleagues to work together zations, where individuals may not typically using ETQS. work together on a regular basis, as well as, or- In this case study, the ETQS Model offered an ganizations that emphasize collaborative work- effective and efficient framework for collabora- flows. The model can provide a safety net of tive research. It helped the team establish a com- community research support for those who have mitment of time for research and research mo- not published or who are new to the field. In mentum. It gave team members new research these instances, the ETQS Model could encour- skills, experience, and self-confidence in the re- age individuals to consider cooperative research search process and provided a collaborative re- and publication. The model could also be search and peer-mentoring opportunity that ef- adapted to collaborate with colleagues at two or fectively promoted scholarly research. As the three different institutions. Additionally, the ETQS Model is used by other researchers, in model could support teams of individuals to be other institutions, and in different settings, addi- involved in library research and scholarship in tional evaluations of the model’s effectiveness places where it is not a requirement to publish will be useful. such as community college and public libraries. Furthermore, the ETQS model could potentially

1 Catherine Sassen and Diane Wahl, “Fostering to Research Productivity across Librarianship Research and Publication in Academic Librar- and Other Disciplines," Library and Information ies,” College and Research Libraries 75, no. 4 (2014): Research 38, no. 119 (2015): 13-28; Jane E. Klobas 458-91, https://digital.li- and Laurel A. Clyde, "Beliefs, Attitudes and Per- brary.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306041/. ceptions about Research and Practice in a Pro- fessional Field," Library & Information Science Re- 2 Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, search 32, no. 4 (2010): 237-45; Adriaan Swa- "Academic Librarian Research: An Update to a nepoel, “Involving University Library Staff in Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Ongoing Research,” Proceedings of the IATUL Capabilities." College & Research Libraries 79, no. Conferences 42 (2006): 78-83, http://docs.lib.pur- 6 (2018): 822-51; Kristin Hoffmann, Selinda Ad- due.edu/iatul/2006/papers/42; Susan Lessick elle Berg, and Denise Koufogiannakis, "Examin- et al., “Research Engagement of Health Sciences ing Success: Identifying Factors That Contribute

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 131 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

155, Librarians: A Survey of Research-related Activi- https://www.doi.org/10.1177/01939459124511 ties and Attitudes,” Journal of Medical Library As- 63. sociation 104, no. 2 (2016): 166-173, 9 http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/68. Social Sciences Feminist Network Research In- terest Group. "The Burden of Invisible Work in 3 Janet Clapton, "Library and Information Sci- Academia: Social Inequalities and Time Use in ence Practitioners Writing for Publication: Moti- Five University Departments." Humboldt vations, Barriers and Supports," Library and In- formation Research 34, no. 106 (2010): 7-21; Lora Journal of Social Relations 39 (2017): 228-245, here Amsberryaugier, Janette Griffin, and Jeongmin 239, https://digitalcommons.hum- Lee, “Library Faculty Research: Facilitating Lo- boldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss39/21/. cal Consensus on Barriers and Incentives,” Loui- 10 Cassandra Guarino and Victor Borden, “Fac- siana Libraries. Spring 2003, pp. 4-7. ulty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women 4 David Fox, "Finding Time for Scholarship: A Taking Care of the Academic Family?” Research Survey of Canadian Research University Librari- in Higher Education 58, no. 6 (2017): 672–694, here ans," Portal: Libraries and the Academy 7, no. 4 690, doi:10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2. (2007): 451-462. doi:10.1353/pla.2007.0041; Patri- 11 National Research Council, Enhancing the Ef- cia L. Hardré et al., "Faculty Motivation to Do fectiveness of Team Science (Washington, D.C.: Research: Across Disciplines in Research-Exten- Academies Press, 2015), sive Universities," Journal of the Professoriate 5, https://www.doi.org/10.17226/19007. no. 1 (2011): 35-70, https://search-ebscohost- com.falcon.lib.csub.edu/login.aspx?di- 12 Kendra S. Cheruvelil et al., “Creating and rect=true&db=a9h&AN=69885383&site=ehost- Maintaining High-Performing Collaborative Re- live; Amsberryaugier et al., “Library Faculty Re- search Teams: The Importance of Diversity and search.”; Klobas and Clyde, "Beliefs, Attitudes Interpersonal Skills,” Frontiers in Ecology and the and Perceptions."; Clapton, "Library and Infor- Environment 12, no. 1 (2014): 31-38; Lynn P. Ny- mation Science Practitioners Writing for Publica- gaard, “Publishing and Perishing: An Academic tion"; Swanepoel, “Involving University Library Literacies Framework for Investigating Research Staff in Ongoing Research.” Productivity,” Studies in Higher Education 42, no. 3 (2017): 519- 5 Hardré et al., "Faculty Motivation to Do Re- 532, https://www.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2 search." 015.1058351; Tomas Hellström, “Epistemic Ca- 6 Hardré, 42-43. pacity in Research Environments: A Framework for Process Evaluation,” Prometheus 30, no. 4 7 Matthew R. McGrail, Claire M. Rickard, and (December 2012): 395–409, Rebecca Jones, “Publish or Perish: A Systematic doi:10.1080/08109028.2012.745959. Review of Interventions to Increase Academic 13 Publication Rates,” Higher Education Research and Liz Walkley Hall and Ian McBain, “Practi- Development 25, no. 1 (2006): 19-36, tioner Research in an Academic Library: Evalu- https://www.doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453 ating the Impact of a Support Group,” The Aus- 053. tralian Library Journal 63, no. 2 (2014): 129-143, https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2014.898238; 8 Jo-Ana Chase et al., “Time Management Strate- Miggie Pickton, “Facilitating a Research Culture gies for Research Productivity,” Western Journal in an Academic Library: Top Down and Bottom of Nursing Research 35, no. 2 (2013): 155-176, here

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 132 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, Decem- Up Approaches,” New Library World 117, no. ½ ber 12, 2018, 1–4. (2016):105-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW- 10-2015-0075. https://search-ebscohost-com.falcon.lib.csub.edu/login.aspx?di- 14 Sooho Lee and Barry Bozeman, “The Impact rect=true&db=buh&AN=133536141&site=ehost- of Research Collaboration on Scientific Produc- live. tivity,” Social Studies of Science 35, no. 5 (2005): 23 673-702, here 674 Gary P. Latham and Edwin A. Locke, “In- https://www.doi.org/10.1177/03063127050523 creasing Productivity with Decreasing Time 59. Limits: A Field Replication of Parkinson’s Law,” Journal of Applied Psychology 60, no. 4 (1975): 524- 15 Cheruvelil, “Creating and Maintaining High- 526, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076916; G. A. Performing Collaborative Research Teams.” Bassett, “A Study of the Effects of Task Goal and Schedule Choice on Work Performance,” Organ- 16 Jeffrey J. McDonnell, “The 1-Hour Workday,” izational Behavior and Human Performance 24, Science 353, issue 6300 (2016): 718, DOI: (1979): 202-227; J. F. Bryan and E. A. Locke, “Par- 10.1126/science.353.6300.718. kinson’s Law as a Goal-setting Phenomenon,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 17 Rebecca Mills, Paul A. Hill, and Kristine Saun- 2, (1967): 258-275. ders, “Finding the Motivation, Time, Personal Techniques, and the Confidence to Write,” Jour- 24 Latham and Locke, “Increasing Productivity nal of Extension 54, no. 1 (2016): 13, with Decreasing Time Limits,” 524. https://search-ebscohost-com.falcon.lib.csub.edu/login.aspx?di- 25 Latham and Locke, 524. rect=true&db=eft&AN=113731806&login.asp&si 26 te=ehost-live. Swanepoel, “Involving University Library Staff in Ongoing research.” 18 Wendy Laura Belcher, Writing Your Journal Ar- 27 ticle in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Pickton, “Facilitating a Research Culture in an Success (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Academic Library.” 2009). 28 Doreen Sullivan et al., "Getting Published: 19 Chase, “Time Management Strategies for Re- Group Support for Academic Librarians." Li- search Productivity.” brary Management 34, no. 8/9 (2013): 690.

29 20 Joseph Fennewald, “Research Productivity Ronald R. Powell, “Evaluation Research: An Among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publica- Overview,” Library Trends 55, no. 1 (2006): 102- tions at Penn State,” College & Research Libraries 20, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/202358; Daniel 69, no. 2 (2008): 104-116, L. Stufflebeam and Chris L.S. Coryn, Evaluation https://www.doi.org/10.5860/crl.69.2.104. Theory, Models, and Applications (Somerset: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014), 21 Leo Gough, C. Northcote Parkinson's Parkin- https://ebookcen- son's Law: A Modern-day Interpretation of a True tral.proquest.com/lib/csub/detail.action?do- Classic, Infinite Success Series, (Oxford: Infinite cID=1801247 (accessed August 9, 2018), Ideas, 2011). ProQuest Ebook Central; C. H. Weiss, Evalua- tion: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies 22 Marc Zao-Sanders, “How Timeboxing Works and Why It Will Make You More Productive.”

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 133 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

34 Jeannette O. Andrews et al., “Training Part- (2nd ed.), (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice nership Dyads for Community-Based Participa- Hall, 1998); M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Research tory Research: Strategies and Lessons Learned and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.), (Thousand from the Community Engaged Scholars Pro- Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002). gram.” Health Promotion Practice 14, no. 4 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912461273; 30 Gary Bess, Michele King, and Pamela L. Le- Bess, King, and LeMaster, “Process Evaluation: Master, “Process Evaluation: How it Works,” How it Works”; Aleksander Galas et al., “Re- American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health search Project Evaluation—Learnings from the Research 11, no. 2 (2004): 109-120, PATHWAYS Project Experience,” International http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/col- Journal of Environmental Research and Public leges/PublicHealth/research/cen- Health 15, no. 6 (2018), ters/CAIANH/journal/Documents/Vol- https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061071; Cyd S. ume%2011/11(2)_Bess_Process_Evaluation_109- Nam et al., “Process Evaluation and Lessons 120.pdf. Learned from Engaging Local Policymakers in 31 Powell, “Evaluation Research: An Overview.” the B’More Healthy Communities for Kids Trial.” Health Education & Behavior 46, no. 1 32 Jytte Brender Mcnair, Handbook of Evaluation (2019), Methods for Health Informatics (Burlington: Else- https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118778323; Or- vier Science & Technology, 2006), egon Health Authority, “Process Evaluation Re- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-370464- port: SRCH: Sustainable Relationships for Com- 1.X5000-X (accessed May 13, 2020). munity Health: 2015,” (April 29, 2016), https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/ANA- 33 Alan Walter Steiss, Strategic Management for LYTICS/Evaluation%20docs/Process%20Evalu- Public and Nonprofit Organizations (New York: ation%20Report%20-%20Sustainable%20Rela- Marcel Dekker, 2003), 102; Margareta Nelke and tionships%20for%20Community%20Health.pdf. S.C. Ray, Strategic Business Development for Infor- mation Centres and Libraries (Witney: Elsevier Sci- 35 Emet Gürel and Merba Tat, “Swot Analysis: A ence & Technology, 2011), Theoretical Review,” Journal of International So- https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780632971; Jela cial Research 10, no. 51 (2017), Webb, Strategic Information Management: A Prac- https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832; Sepehr titioner's Guide. (Oxford, England: Chandos Pub- Ghazinoory, Mansoureh Abdi, and Mandana lishing, 2008), Azadegan-Mehr. “SWOT Methodology: A State- https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780631356; Bess, of-the-Art Review for the Past, a Framework for King, and LeMaster, “Process Evaluation: How the Future / SSGG Metodologija: Praeities Ir it Works”; Doug Leigh, ”SWOT Analysis,” in Ateities Analizė.” Journal of Business Economics Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Prin- and Management 12, no. 1 (2011), ciples, Practices, and Potential, ed. James A. Per- https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.555358. shing (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2006), 1089-1108, 36 https://csub-primo.hosted.exlibris- Anol Bhattacherjee, "Social Science Research: group.com/per- Principles, Methods, and Practices" (2012), Text- malink/f/1boqqeq/TN_pq_ebook_cen- books Collection. 3. https://scholarcom- tralEBC258899; Skye Schooley, “SWOT Analysis: mons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3; Lynn Silipigni What It Is and When to Use it,” Business News Connaway and Ronald R. Powell, Basic Research Daily, June 23,2019, https://www.business- newsdaily.com/4245-swot-analysis.html.

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 134 Alexander et al.: The Efficient Team-Driven Quality Scholarship Model

Publishing, 2008), 459-478, Methods for Librarians, 5th ed (Library and Infor- doi:10.1002/9780470756669.ch22. mation Science Text Series. Santa Barbara, CA: 41 Libraries Unlimited, 2010). Powell, “Evaluation Research: An Overview”; Stufflebeam and Coryn, Evaluation Theory, Mod- 37 Diane Sonnenwald, "Scientific Collaboration." els, and Applications; Weiss, Evaluation: Methods Annual Review of Information Science and Technol- for Studying Programs and Policies; Patton, Quali- ogy 41 (2007): 643-81. tative Research and Evaluation Methods.

38 Sarah Tracy, “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big- 42 Bess, King, and LeMaster, “Process Evalua- Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Re- tion: How it Works”; Leigh, “SWOT Analysis.” search,” Qualitative Inquiry 16, no. 10 (2010): 837- 851, 43 Four or more responses in either SWOT analy- https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121. sis was considered a major SWOT category.

39 Lindsay Glynn, “A Critical Appraisal Tool for 44 Selenay Aytac and Bruce Slutsky, “Published Library and Information Research,” Library Hi Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses Tech 24, no. 3 (2006): 387-39, and Perspectives,” Collaborative Librarianship 6, https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154 no. 4 (October 2014): 147–159, https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarian- 40 Erica Desrosiers et al., “Writing Research Arti- ship/vol6/iss4/6/. cles: Update on the Article Review Checklist,” in Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Or- 45 National Research Council, Enhancing the Ef- ganization Psychology (Oxford, UK: Blackwell fectiveness of Team Science.

Collaborative Librarianship 12(1): 113-135 (2019) 135